It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ABUSE CRISIS: President Karzai Wants Control of U.S. Military in Afghanistan

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:30 PM
Afghan President Hamid Karzai called for control of military operations in Afghanistan following the release of a U.S. army report on the abuse of detainees at military bases. Karzai also said his government wants custody of all Afghan prisoners and demanded the U.S. government take strong action against offending soldiers.
Karzai said he was "shocked" by allegations of abuse by poorly trained U.S. soldiers made by the New York Times in its Friday edition. The report cited a 2,000-page confidential file on the Army's criminal investigation into the deaths of two Afghans at the Bagram base in December 2002.

Karzai said he will bring up the issue when he meets American leaders during a four-day visit to the United States starting Saturday.

He also demanded greater control over U.S. military operations here, including a stop to raids by American troops on Afghans' homes without the knowledge of his administration.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

These are rather bold statements from Karzai, who until now has been relatively meek in his role as President, particularly where U.S. military activities are concerned; not surprising, since if it weren't for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Karzai would not be where he is today.

Karzai is dreaming if he thinks his government will be given control over U.S. military operations, however I think that his request for custody of prisoners is reasonable, and could well be a stabilizing factor in light of the recent trouble sparked by Newsweek's "Quran in the toilet" fiasco. His request for strong action to be taken against soldiers implicated in abuse cases is also reasonable, since it appears that the majority have been either hastily exonerated, or treated very lightly.

Related News Links:

[edit on 2005/5/21 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:37 PM
This is the real reason Karzai has a hair up his rear.

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:58 PM
I think it's more a case of the puppet straining against his strings and trying to stand on his own feet.

Karzai is in a difficult position, caught somewhere between the US and the local warlords who hold sway outside of Kabul. It's apparent that he holds little real power, and he's also probably not getting any share of the money from Afghanistan's largest export - opium.

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 03:22 AM
As I stated in another thread, despite all other circumstances, the ramifications for the outcome are huge.

Will the democratically elected president be in charge of the country? Or will the occupying force be in charge?

Alright US, Britain, et al, how sincere are you in your quest for democracy?

[edit on 22-5-2005 by Jamuhn]

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 06:58 AM
This will ultimately fizzle into nothing. President Karzai initially wants control of all Afghan prisoners due to the rampant prisoner abuse scandals that have been surfacing over the past few months. Now he has stated that he wants control of U.S. operations in Afghan. Not sure who is crazier, Mr. Jong or Mr. Karzai

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 07:06 AM
Simulacra, i think Karzai is crazier lol, if he think he can get control of US military and operations in that region, well he is dreaming lol

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:54 AM
I think it is nothing more then a domestic PR move for Karzai to make people think e isn't a puppet like everyone knows he is.

I would be suprised if Bush would ever allow his troops to be commanded by a foreign government

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 09:29 AM
That will never happen, PERIOD.

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:20 AM
I must agree it's more of a PR move. It's the right attitude to taking the reigns of a country that has been pretty much ruled by the military up until now, and should be welcomed. Iraqi control and the elimination of American forces in Iraq is a good thing, when done at the right time. It needs to be done carefully, not as quickly as might be suggested here.

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 03:51 PM

Iraqi control and the elimination of American forces in Iraq is a good thing

Just to clarify, you meant to say "evacuation", not "elimination", right?

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:55 PM
I can understand why he would never gain control of military forces.
but would someone like to explain to me why he shouldnt have control of operations within his own country?
of all people i would think the Afghani's have the most rights when it comes to operations command.
with allied advisors and commanders involved in the prcess of course, that is always essential,
but its their country isnt it?

new topics

top topics


log in